"What Happens Next In The Ukraine Proxy War?"
by Brandon Smith
From the very beginning of the Ukraine conflict I have been following developments on both sides. My concern has always been the larger implications in geopolitics and economics. Because globalism has pushed most nations into interdependency, an ongoing war in Ukraine could very well set off a chain of dominoes that tests America’s already unstable financial system and supply chain.
I should note that I really don’t care about the Ukrainian government or the Russian government and I have no interest in which side “wins.” I, like many people, think Ukraine has nothing to do with the American public and is purely a proxy war being pursued by NATO. It is my belief that certain international interests (globalists) are keen for the conflict to continue regardless as they seek to exploit it as a crisis of opportunity.
All of my primary predictions for the Ukraine war have turned out to be true:
First, as I noted in my article ‘The Globalist Reset Agenda Has Failed – Is Ukraine Plan B?’, published in January 2022, a regional war (or proxy war) with Russia in Ukraine was the most likely scenario to unfold, followed by international calls for escalation against Russia.
Second, in my article ‘Ukraine Learns The Value Of An Armed Citizenry, But Far Too Late’, published in March, I noted that: “The methods which Ukrainian forces are using to ambush Russian armor columns are rather advanced and familiar. I suspect the possibility that there are outside military “advisers” (perhaps US advisers) on the ground right now in Ukraine. The advanced guerrilla-style ambush tactics and the results look similar to training that is often given to Green Berets or SAS. The UK did send anti-tank weapons along with a small group of “trainers” to Ukraine in January.”
It is now openly admitted by recently retired British Army, Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith that UK special forces (SAS) are on the ground in Ukraine leading Ukrainian troops. This revelation potentially opens the door to a much wider war between NATO and Russia.
Third, in my article ‘Escalation: Recent Events Suggest Mounting Economic Danger’, published last September, I predicted that: “With the amount of propaganda coming from Ukrainian Intelligence and NATO, it’s hard to say what is actually happening, but I suspect Russia is changing strategies and repositioning to deploy missile and artillery bombardment of infrastructure, including power grids and water. This is a tactic that Russia has avoided for months, which is surprising because one of the first measures usually taken by the US during an invasion is to eliminate most key infrastructure (as we did in Iraq).”
Not long after I wrote this, Russia did in fact shift to an infrastructure targeting strategy. Ukraine’s power grid was estimated in December to be 60% to 80% destroyed, and 70% of residents in Kyiv were without running water. Ukrainian grid operators admit that the damage is “colossal.” In the least damaged regions, the power grid is still running at a 30% deficit.
Large generators shipped by NATO countries have lessened the strain and allowed major facilities like hospitals and military posts to function and mild weather has helped prevent a full on exodus of the entire population. Repairs are ongoing, but the lowest damage estimates are running around $9 billion (more than double that in the mid-range estimates), and rolling blackouts continued through the end of January with a limit of 10 hours per day of electricity for citizens that still have a working grid.
I mention this information because it is important to put these events in context of the bigger picture; the mainstream media and a majority of pro-Ukraine people argued that these scenarios were not going to happen. They were wrong. They will continue to make wrong predictions because they are basing their conclusions on propaganda rather than evidence and logic.
Russian missile and drone strikes on infrastructure in particular were widely dismissed as a possibility in the weeks leading up to the Russian pullback. The “war was over”, they claimed, and soon Ukraine would take the Donbas and even Crimea. Yet, here we are months later and the war continues.
As I have noted ever since Russia shifted strategies for the winter, all Putin had to do is wait until NATO armaments and money started to fade and Ukraine’s grid down problems wear out the population. In terms of US arms, deliveries are now drawing down as inventories shrink on key weaponry. Putin has been playing the long game.
The grid targeting strategy made sense for a number of reasons, but most of all it suggests an effort by Russia to push civilian populations out of major cities or out of the country entirely. Why is this valuable to Putin? Because less civilians means a lesser chance of heavy collateral damage during a new offensive effort, which I believe will take place sometime this spring.
It’s important to understand that, for now, the dynamics of war have changed. The information age has made hiding military operations and movements very difficult, and when civilian casualties mount everyone in the world is going to know about it. If media and phone technology had been as available in Iraq in 2003 as it is today, I suspect the US would have waged the war much more carefully and avoided the high civilian death rate. At this time, public optics matter and Ukraine is as much an information war as it is a shooting war.
Putin is likely trying to clear the field of as many civilians as he can before a renewed push forward. At least 20% of the Ukrainian population has permanently fled to Europe under refugee status while around 2.9 million Ukrainians have left to join Russia.
Russia now has an approaching window for offensive actions, and the need for such a move is clear. NATO countries are supplying Ukraine with less armaments than before, but they are upping the technological level of the weapons they are delivering. It is only a matter of time before long range missiles are handed to Zelensky that would give him the ability to strike at targets deep in Russia.
Putin will need to increase the existing buffer and expand his foothold beyond the Donbas while also protecting Crimea from retaliation. This means, most likely, splitting the country in two from the north and drawing a majority of Ukraine/NATO elements there. Spring would be the most opportune time, as conditions for troop movements improve. Offense requires speed.
There have been reports of extensive troop movements and joint training in Belarus, a Russian ally within easy striking distance of Kyiv. The troop build up in Belerus is compounded by a recent statement by President Alexander Lukashenko, who warned that even a single enemy soldier crossing the Belarus border would lead to the nation’s full involvement in Ukraine. In other words, Belerus is about to join a Russian offensive with its 60,000 troops and 300,000 reservists. Surrounding Kyiv from the north would be child’s play.
Russia has been engaged in counter-operations in the east for the past month, but I suspect this is a distraction from the real strike which will come from Belarus. Russia has cut their artillery attacks by 75%, which suggests a stockpiling of ordnance for an offensive attack. Russia’s missile bombardments have also been highly limited, and though mainstream propagandists say that they must be “running low”, a majority of their missile technology has been used sparingly, including their hypersonic missile technology which has only been used three times for key targets according to reports.
Russia has not deployed the majority of their air forces and larger drones to Ukraine. A cursory study of Russian military capabilities should tell anyone that Putin is holding back, again, likely to avoid mass civilian casualties. All bets are off this spring if and when Belerus joins the theater.
Mainstream military analysts continue to argue that Belarus is “just a feint.” They say the deployment of Russian forces is limited, that Russia doesn’t have the resources for a new offensive and that Belarus will not join the war. The fact that these analysts have been consistently wrong for the past year tells me that ALL of these elements are going to happen.
The question is, what happens after that? What happens when Russia takes considerable ground in Ukraine despite hundreds of billions of dollars in NATO aid, advanced armaments, intel from the DoD and special forces “advisers” on the ground? Well, NATO officials have said that a loss in Ukraine is not acceptable; meaning, they will escalate.
It’s hard to say yet what that would entail – Russia has already weathered all sanctions and economic tactics deployed by the west with the help of trading partners like China and India. They have even survived being removed from the SWIFT network. Escalation would have to entail direct contact.
It is my belief that the Ukraine event is just one part of a larger chain reaction. With NATO weakened after throwing billions in cash into Ukraine along with a large supply of arms, it seems obvious to me that this is an opportune time for another conflict elsewhere which NATO will be ill equipped to respond to. China is in a perfect position to invade Taiwan, for example. Ukraine is a useful powderkeg, but not the only powderkeg."
No comments:
Post a Comment